I am used to a clear distinction between architecture and framework, a framework being Informational while an architecture is close to if not actually a Standard. Designs MUST then conform to the architecture.
That said, most IETF work goes straight into detailed design, sometimes not even pausing for requirements:-( I liked 'architecture and framework' as covering most, if not all, the bases. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Noel Chiappa" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [i2rs] Potential charter tweak > > From: "Adrian Farrel" <[email protected]> > > > One of the ADs doing a final review of the draft charter is struggling > > with the difference or overlap between 'architecture' and 'framework'. > > >> I would change all instances of "High-level architecture and > >> framework" to "High-level architecture" > > > Would this cause anyone a peptic ulcer? > > To me, "high-level architecture" is beyond utterly redundant. (If it's not > high-level, it's not architecture.) > > > If 'architecture and framework' doesn't fly (it doesn't bother me that much, > and I see your point about avoiding the question, although I too am not sure > I see much of a distinction), just flip a coin (literally) and pick one. > > Noel > _______________________________________________ > i2rs mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
